Evolution: Non-Denial Denial?

[thesometimesaint]

2 minutes ago, JAHS said:

God is the head scientist. He knows exactly how it all works. God and science have to be connected in some way. I didn't give up my religion or belief in God when I became a scientist. In fact it helped give me a stronger belief in God. 

As science can't posit him/her/it onto science, and have it still be science. He may or may not be the "head scientist". No one is saying you have to. Some of the greatest scientists of all time have been believers in God. About 40% of all American scientists are theists. I don't claim to be a great scientist. I am one of the 40% however.

[pogi]

15 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

Pogi:

Evolution is not chance.

I am glad that we can agree on one thing.

15 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

SEE http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html

This is a straw-man.  Once again, instead of just posting a link, give me a brief summary and copy the sections that are relevant to the topic at hand, so I don't have to read through the whole thing only to find out that it has nothing to do with what I am talking about.  It is common courtesy.

After sifting through multiple irrelevent links posted by you, it is abundantly clear that you have no idea what I am talking about.

[thesometimesaint]

You refuse to look at the videos, refuse to read the links, refuse to accept the actual science on convergence.

SEE https://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/convergent_evolution.htm

SEE http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/denton.html

It is your right to do all those things and more, but I am at a loss for words.

Ps; http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017344920

Edited March 27, 2016 by thesometimesaint

[Freedom]

17 hours ago, JAHS said:

God is the head scientist. He knows exactly how it all works. God and science have to be connected in some way. I didn't give up my religion or belief in God when I became a scientist. In fact it helped give me a stronger belief in God. 

Yes he is the head scientist, and he is revealing how he did it through inspired scientist who are following the scientific method. I am always curious why people seem to take issue with evolution, but not any other scientific theory. Science and religion are not related. The scriptures do not consider how things came to be, they are concerned with teaching the plan of salvation. Evolution has been proven over and over gain through the scientific method. It has been observed in nature and in the lab, the archaeological evidence has proven it to be how life came to be. The reality of evolution has nothing whatsoever to do with God being the head scientist other than to show us how God created his masterpiece. 

[Freedom]

3 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

You refuse to look at the videos, refuse to read the links, refuse to accept the actual science on convergence.

SEE https://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/convergent_evolution.htm

SEE http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/denton.html

It is your right to do all those things and more, but I am at a loss for words.

Ps; http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017344920

Do you find that this is like having a discussion about paint, and the pious keep arguing that turtles have eyes therefore paint is not true?

[bcuzbcuz]

On 25 March 2016 at 7:46 PM, JAHS said:

we can only make guesses and assumptions based on fossils we find in the ground. Maybe God did use some form of evolution until the animals got to the forms they were at the time of the Garden of Eden;

 

I don't know. But I do still recognized His involvement as the creator of all things in the universe. 

You have stated your acceptance of evolution as an explanation from the evidence we have to date. Yet you state that that evolution was used to get animals to "the forms they were at the time of the G of E".

That's not how evolution works. It doesn't have an "end form". Neither animals nor we humans are the ultimate goal of evolution. We are only a stepping stone, maybe a temporary plateau, along the path of evolution. We may be no more than fleeting blipp on that path. Dinosaurs were around for more than 100 million years. So far, humans haven't been here for one million years yet. When we humans disappear, either by evolving to something else, or by destroying ourselves, evolution will continue as a process.

[JAHS]

15 minutes ago, Freedom said:

Evolution has been proven over and over gain through the scientific method. It has been observed in nature and in the lab, the archaeological evidence has proven it to be how life came to be.

I don't agree with this. Very little has been "proven".in the lab. We might be able to watch a bacterium take on some new biochemical process resulting in some minor changes, but it is still a bacterium. We can observe that through the scientific method. But we have not observed a bacterium evolve into a fish or a horse by the scientific method. We assume that because minor changes can be observed, it must be possible that it is how all species came to exist on the macro level. A big assumption. Archaeological evidence only shows an animal as it was when it died; it does not show us how it evolved from one form of life into a different form, nor can we go back in time to see it happen. Evolution may have been they way it all happened but it has not been adequately "proven" by scientific method.

[JAHS]

20 minutes ago, bcuzbcuz said:

You have stated your acceptance of evolution as an explanation from the evidence we have to date. Yet you state that that evolution was used to get animals to "the forms they were at the time of the G of E".

That's not how evolution works. It doesn't have an "end form". Neither animals nor we humans are the ultimate goal of evolution. We are only a stepping stone, maybe a temporary plateau, along the path of evolution. We may be no more than fleeting blipp on that path. Dinosaurs were around for more than 100 million years. So far, humans haven't been here for one million years yet. When we humans disappear, either by evolving to something else, or by destroying ourselves, evolution will continue as a process.

No I said "maybe He used some form of evolution"; not the kind of evolution as we have identified it. However He did it, I recognize His hand in the creation of all things.

[pogi]

4 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

You refuse to look at the videos, refuse to read the links, refuse to accept the actual science on convergence.

Actually, I have read all of your links.  I DO accept the ACTUAL science of convergence.  Phenotypical convergence, as explained in your links, is not a problem for me, as it fits nicely in the theory of evolution.  However, CONVERGENT GENOTYPES is not addressed or explained in your links!

The first paper published on the discovery of genetic convergence was in 2013!  Yes, 2013.  Yet, some of your papers were written in 1996-1997!  WHAT?  You don't understand the difference between phenotype and genotype convergence. 

You seem to act like this is not surprising, yet the scientists and researchers involved are extremely surprised and amazed, because it should be impossible according to the theory of evolution.

[bcuzbcuz]

10 minutes ago, pogi said:

Actually, I have read all of your links.  I DO accept the ACTUAL science of convergence.  Phenotypical convergence, as explained in your links, is not a problem for me, as it fits nicely in the theory of evolution.  However, CONVERGENT GENOTYPES is not addressed or explained in your links!

The first paper published on the discovery of genetic convergence was in 2013!  Yes, 2013.  Yet, some of your papers were written in 1996-1997!  WHAT?  You don't understand the difference between phenotype and genotype convergence. 

You seem to act like this is not surprising, yet the scientists and researchers involved are extremely surprised and amazed, because it should be impossible according to the theory of evolution.

Not to nitpick, but, well yes, to nitpick, the first paper you use, "Causes and evolutionary significance of genetic convergence" was published in 2010. The paper is used extensively on Intelligent Design sites, such as: Evolution News and Views,  http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/09/convergent_genetic_evolution_s037781.html

and, IDEA, Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center.  http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1490

Have you read, : https://www.google.se/search?sclient=tablet-gws&site=&source=hp&q=fleeting&oq=fleeting&gs_l=tablet-gws.12..0l3.3439.6085.0.8889.9.7.0.2.2.0.839.1743.0j5j1j6-1.7.0....0...1c..64.tablet-gws..0.8.923.0.sx_oXQAA1s8# 

The probability of genetic parallelism and convergence in natural populations

Gina L. Conte, Matthew E. Arnegard, Catherine L. Peichel, Dolph Schluter. 2012.

 

Genetic Convergence in the Adaptation of Dogs and Humans to the High-Altitude Environment of the Tibetan Plateau

1. Guo-Dong Wang¹,^†, 
2. Ruo-Xi Fan²,^†, 
3. Weiwei Zhai³,⁴, 
4. Fei Liu¹, 
5. Lu Wang², 
6. Li Zhong², 
7. Hong Wu², 
8. He-Chuan Yang¹,⁵, 
9. Shi-Fang Wu¹, 
10. Chun-Ling Zhu¹, 
11. Yan Li², 
12. Yun Gao¹, 
13. Ri-Li Ge⁶, 
14. Chung-I Wu²,⁷ and 
15. Ya-Ping Zhang¹,²,⁴,*  2014
16.  
17.  

Although the work at Brown is interesting, In the few short years since 2010, I'm not surprised that so few counter arguments or counter explanations have been heard. It is still early.

[Freedom]

2 hours ago, JAHS said:

I don't agree with this. Very little has been "proven".in the lab. We might be able to watch a bacterium take on some new biochemical process resulting in some minor changes, but it is still a bacterium. We can observe that through the scientific method. But we have not observed a bacterium evolve into a fish or a horse by the scientific method. We assume that because minor changes can be observed, it must be possible that it is how all species came to exist on the macro level. A big assumption. Archaeological evidence only shows an animal as it was when it died; it does not show us how it evolved from one form of life into a different form, nor can we go back in time to see it happen. Evolution may have been they way it all happened but it has not been adequately "proven" by scientific method.

So if a cat could be observed slowly evolving into an elephant you would reject this because they are still mammals. The fact that it is a scientific theory is the proof you need to understand that it has been proven by the scientific method. I have a hard time believing that you have any scientific training whatsoever with comments like this. 

[JAHS]

31 minutes ago, Freedom said:

So if a cat could be observed slowly evolving into an elephant you would reject this because they are still mammals.

Have you seen that happen? Please let me know the results of your experiment.  Trans-species evolution is not observable in a lab experiment. I am not saying it can't happen over millions of years; it just can't be adequately observed or proven in a lab experiment. 

[thesometimesaint]

4 hours ago, JAHS said:

Have you seen that happen? Please let me know the results of your experiment.  Trans-species evolution is not observable in a lab experiment. I am not saying it can't happen over millions of years; it just can't be adequately observed or proven in a lab experiment. 

Incorrect; Speciation has been observed.

SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species

[Freedom]

4 hours ago, JAHS said:

Have you seen that happen? Please let me know the results of your experiment.  Trans-species evolution is not observable in a lab experiment. I am not saying it can't happen over millions of years; it just can't be adequately observed or proven in a lab experiment. 

It has, but you also seem to have a hang up that requires any scientific theory to only be valid if it can be duplicated in a lab experiment. This is simply false. Much of the facts in science are from observation, not from lab experiments. If I said I was standing at the entrance of disneyland, you would not set up a lab experiment to prove this to be true. You would head over to the entrance of Disneyland to see if I am standing there. The evidence of evolution is clearly laid out in the evidence. No, we were not there to see it happen but to suggest we must see it personally to prove it is a reality is completely false. I can look at a picture of a waterfall and know it is a waterfall without having to see it in person. Essentially you have an argument from silence. You are questioning evolution but you have no alternative explanation for what the data is telling us. This simply means you dispute it for reasons other than facts. 

[thesometimesaint]

4 hours ago, JAHS said:

Have you seen that happen? Please let me know the results of your experiment.  Trans-species evolution is not observable in a lab experiment. I am not saying it can't happen over millions of years; it just can't be adequately observed or proven in a lab experiment. 

The reason scientists use bacteria is that they have a short enough lifespan to make its evolution readily observable. 30,000 generations is a few weeks for bacteria. For people that is about 100,000 years. The lowest age of the human genome.

SEE http://sciblogs.co.nz/griffins-gadgets/2010/03/17/lenski-and-his-50000-generations-of-e-coli/

[Atheist Mormon]

On 3/23/2016 at 9:52 AM, ERayR said:

This is what it always boils down to.  A quibble of semantics and I am not here to quibble semantics with you.  If what you believe works for you, well here is three cheers for you.  I don't happen to see things the way you do and I and others consider me a somewhat intelligent fellow, so see no need to change or argue with you at this time.  So to reiterate; If it works for you hang on to it but don't be so insistent that you are right and the rest of us need to change.

Not in the slightest; The theory of Evolution is very well substantiated and taught around the globe with the exception of some Religious ones. There are thousands of scientists who work on several aspects of Evolution Theory do come to the same conclusion....

On the other hand the proponents of the Creation theory is widely diverse, according to cultures...Everyone has a different story and the interesting part is theirs is the true story, the rest is "Fiction". 

Again the evidence plays a crucial role, we have ample supplies of fossils which collaborate, verify the evidence.

[JAHS]

7 hours ago, Freedom said:

Much of the facts in science are from observation, not from lab experiments.

In my profession if I only had facts from past observations and tried to make something based only on those observations without testing and reproducing the actual process I would have been fired from my job.

7 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

30,000 generations is a few weeks for bacteria. For people that is about 100,000 years.

We can observe 30,000 generations for a bacterium. We can't observe 100,000 years for a human being. Once again if I used this type of logic in what I do in my profession, trying to extrapolate data from one experiment that proves one thing and assume the results will be the same for something different without actually testing it,  I would have been fired from my job. It's like reading a scientific article on how to manufacture a medical test for diagnosing a certain disease and think, well I could use that same procedure for this other disease and produce a product. No need to test it to see if it actually worked the way I expect it to because someone else already did that for that other test they developed. 

I agree that theory of evolution is the best explanation science has come up with so far based on what we can observe, but it relies heavily on extrapolations and assumptions. 

 

[thesometimesaint]

11 minutes ago, JAHS said:

In my profession if I only had facts from past observations and tried to make something based only on those observations without testing and reproducing the actual process I would have been fired from my job.

We can observe 30,000 generations for a bacterium. We can't observe 100,000 years for a human being. Once again if I used this type of logic in what I do in my profession, trying to extrapolate data from one experiment that proves one thing and assume the results will be the same for something different without actually testing it,  I would have been fired from my job. It's like reading a scientific article on how to manufacture a medical test for diagnosing a certain disease and think, well I could use that same procedure for this other disease and produce a product. No need to test it to see if it actually worked the way I expect it to because someone else already did that for that other test they developed. 

I agree that theory of evolution is the best explanation science has come up with so far based on what we can observe, but it relies heavily on extrapolations and assumptions. 

 

Are humans not subject to biology?

SEE http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/

We weren't there to see the sun form. So how do we know how it works? You look at the evidence, and conduct small scale tests to either confirm or deny the hypothesis.

[JAHS]

8 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

We weren't there to see the sun form. So how do we know how it works? You look at the evidence, and conduct small scale tests to either confirm or deny the hypothesis.

I agree. Not sure what your point is. We know how it works now because we can perform real time tests today and get current measurements and data. That might give us some hints or ideas on how it was formed, but we can't perform any actual tests to verify those ideas. All we can do is make assumptions and extrapolations.

[Freedom]

37 minutes ago, JAHS said:

In my profession if I only had facts from past observations and tried to make something based only on those observations without testing and reproducing the actual process I would have been fired from my job.

 

So shall we fire all astrophysicists? Are you serious? And about marine biologists? If you cannot reproduce the mating practices of a blue wale in the lab then you might as well change careers. I am sure you are a a very good climatologist but if you cannot produce the same environmental conditions that you claim exist on Mount baker in your university classroom you are not qualified to talk about the weather. I'm sorry, but you have no idea how science works. Archaeologists do not verify their discovery of an ancient city in a laboratory, they verify it by digging in the dirt and observing what others left behind. 

[thesometimesaint]

13 minutes ago, JAHS said:

I agree. Not sure what your point is. We know how it works now because we can perform real time tests today and get current measurements and data. That might give us some hints or ideas on how it was formed, but we can't perform any actual tests to verify those ideas. All we can do is make assumptions and extrapolations.

What? Here is a real life example of a small scale test to confirm how the sun works.

SEE;

 

[JAHS]

2 minutes ago, Freedom said:

So shall we fire all astrophysicists? Are you serious? And about marine biologists? If you cannot reproduce the mating practices of a blue wale in the lab then you might as well change careers. I am sure you are a a very good climatologist but if you cannot produce the same environmental conditions that you claim exist on Mount baker in your university classroom you are not qualified to talk about the weather. I'm sorry, but you have no idea how science works. Archaeologists do not verify their discovery of an ancient city in a laboratory, they verify it by digging in the dirt and observing what others left behind. 

The testing doesn't have to be in the lab. I can go to the ocean now and observe the mating practices of the blue whale. I can go to Mount Baker now and perform tests on the environmental conditions there. Can't do that with evolution.  Archaeologists do a fine job of extracting fossils from the ground and postulating on how it got there or how it was formed but then they have to make some assumptions and extrapolations in order to relate that to how humans evolved. I understand all that and that it is the best we can do. 

[pogi]

15 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said:

Not to nitpick, but, well yes, to nitpick, the first paper you use, "Causes and evolutionary significance of genetic convergence" was published in 2010. The paper is used extensively on Intelligent Design sites, such as: Evolution News and Views,

That is no reason to nitpick.  Now, if you can refute the research, that is a reason to nitpick. 

That is just one link out of several links that I used.  Can you refute (nitpick) anything in any of the scientific research and papers that I linked to?

15 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said:

Have you read, : https://www.google.se/search?sclient=tablet-gws&site=&source=hp&q=fleeting&oq=fleeting&gs_l=tablet-gws.12..0l3.3439.6085.0.8889.9.7.0.2.2.0.839.1743.0j5j1j6-1.7.0....0...1c..64.tablet-gws..0.8.923.0.sx_oXQAA1s8# 

The probability of genetic parallelism and convergence in natural populations

Genetic Convergence in the Adaptation of Dogs and Humans to the High-Altitude Environment of the Tibetan Plateau

1.  

Your first link is a google search for the definition of "fleeting".  Not gonna help.

I have read the abstract in your "probability" reference in my research of convergent genetics.  The last one is new to me, however, it doesn't refute anything that I have said. It is just one more surprising example of genetic convergence. 

Next time, please provide actual links, and it would be nice if you could copy and paste the relevant portion to the actual post for easy reference.  As I have already explained to SS, I don't know what you are trying to tell me by posting a link.  Most of his links were completely irrelevant and had  no explanation of how it refutes the research that I have linked to.  At least he provided links. 

Your "probability" paper doesn't say much.  Weren't you the one getting after me for posting links to abstracts only?  All it says is that genetic reuse is more probable in closely related populations with a "small subset of available genes".  The probability declines in divergent and distantly related populations with large subsets of available genes.  Unfortunately, this paper only makes the findings that I have linked to harder to explain as I would not call "thousands" of convergent genes a "small subset", and because bats and dolphins are not closely related, yet share a large subset of identical genes, it makes it all the more surprising.  One more problem is that your article is about the probability of "gene reuse" (shared gene from common ancestor).  However, my article is clear that bats and dolphins independently and separately evolved the exact same genes.  

 

Edited March 28, 2016 by pogi

[thesometimesaint]

5 minutes ago, JAHS said:

The testing doesn't have to be in the lab. I can go to the ocean now and observe the mating practices of the blue whale. I can go to Mount Baker now and perform tests on the environmental conditions there. Can't do that with evolution.  Archaeologists do a fine job of extracting fossils from the ground and postulating on how it got there or how it was formed but then they have to make some assumptions and extrapolations in order to relate that to how humans evolved. I understand all that and that it is the best we can do. 

What makes humans so special that they are not subject to the laws of biology?

[Freedom]

20 minutes ago, JAHS said:

The testing doesn't have to be in the lab. I can go to the ocean now and observe the mating practices of the blue whale. I can go to Mount Baker now and perform tests on the environmental conditions there. Can't do that with evolution.  Archaeologists do a fine job of extracting fossils from the ground and postulating on how it got there or how it was formed but then they have to make some assumptions and extrapolations in order to relate that to how humans evolved. I understand all that and that it is the best we can do. 

Yes we can. Evolution is change. Every time a child is born we are witnessing evolution. We see evolution in the lab with microorganisms. It will never be possible to create new human species in our lifetime because that is not how evolution works. And it is not required. You are setting an impossible standard. The evidence in the fossil record is undisputed, unless you are suggesting some other interpretation. All science is assumption and extrapolation. Even observing weather on mount baker requires assumptions and extrapolation. If not, there would not be any more science needed because we would have all the facts.